CGS grading service

[HistoryTreasures 0]

OK everyone mentions CGS....but what about sending it accross the pond to PCGS or ANAC's...they turn them around quickly and appeal to our US buddies (who probably own a large proportion of the worlds rarities).

That is an interesting remark as I was just thinking of getting a few world coins slabbed by them (PCGS or NGC) but I was actually wondering if it would be best to split them up i.e. do they British ones here and the world by PCGS in America. The mind doth boggle...

[azda 979]

OK everyone mentions CGS....but what about sending it accross the pond to PCGS or ANAC's...they turn them around quickly and appeal to our US buddies (who probably own a large proportion of the worlds rarities).

That is an interesting remark as I was just thinking of getting a few world coins slabbed by them (PCGS or NGC) but I was actually wondering if it would be best to split them up i.e. do they British ones here and the world by PCGS in America. The mind doth boggle...

Geez, anyone listening????????? PCGS IS IN EUROPE, why send to the States now? MEIN GOTT!!!

[Hussulo 6]

http://www.pcgs.com/articles/article_view.chtml?artid=6218&universeid=313

[£400 for a Penny ? 0]

There aren't 6500 year 2000 sovs on their population report - there are 2.

So I don't know what's happened there.

That's all I was saying.

Are you looking at CGS? There's actually 6,536 year 2000 sovereigns in the PCGS population report right now.

Yes, I was, sorry if we were talking at cross purposes.

6536 in the PCGS is still mad, but then if you look on ebay you will see that the vast majority of PCGS coins are modern proof issues. Don't get it myself, but the game in the states seems to be to buy the latest mint issue, get it slabbed and then try to sell it for twice what it's available from the mint for....

Take this for example:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/2010-LIBERTY-EAGLE-1-DOLLAR-SILVER-1oz-COIN-PCGS-MS70-/400156182994?pt=UK_Coins_USA_RL&hash=item5d2b2ac9d2

Now, on the assumption that that coin is available from the mint for, what ? $50 ? and lets say a PCGS accreditation costs $20 that's $70 which is £43.50.

Now what kind of a Donkey is going to pay £99 for one ?

This behaviour is a major difference between the US and UK markets, here it doesn't happen, hence 2 2000 proof sovs against 6536.

[Red Riley 2]

I think to preserve the coins,slabs are the best option.

If you buy a coin that is beautifully toned,the last thing you want is for that to disappear.

On the other hand the coins may be several hundred years old by the time they are slabbed. Somehow or other their lustre/tone has survived to this point. If you treat them with care they shouldn't really change that much.

[TomGoodheart 402]

I think the problem with US grading companies was highlighted by an ebay listing (which I have since lost!) for a salbbed coin that said the company had only graded five coins at this grade and seven higher. Which means exactly what it says. Not that there are only seven coins of a higher grade, simply that's all they have seen.

Slabbed coins just don't (currently) have the appeal in Europe that they do in the US and so far fewer are graded. Now far be it from me to advocate slabbing but if I had to choose I'd pick a company with some experience of the coins I'm interested in.

As for a 700 point scale, that seems daft to me! Unless people are seriously going to quibble over an odd point or two, why bother? The + and *s suggest that the whole thing is no more precise than our N(early) or A(bout/ almost) system that works quite well IMHO.

Oh, and that 50c with 'eye appeal' that Huss posted? A particularly ugly piece of kitsch to my eyes I'm afraid. Which perhaps highlights the subjectivity of the 'appeal' of such things as coins and the foolishness of taking it all too seriously and trying to talk in absolutes. Grading isn't that precise unless you use a machine to assess exactly how much wear a coin has sustained (and that assumes you have a 100% perfect example to benchmark and we know how difficult it is to find those!) And even if you could say 'this coin has sustained 10.76% wear compared to a perfect specimen' it means very little since the wear could be from the rim, across the whole coin or from the centre of the bust making it either unnoticable or irrelevant or disasterous in terms of eye appeal.

So returning to the original question, I'd say slabbing is only worth it for coins that might tarnish or that you want authenticated and that will sell for a decent multiple of the cost of slabbing. Because I doubt (m)any Europeans will pay more just because a coin is slabbed.

Edited March 15, 2011 by TomGoodheart

[SionGilbey 1]

Oh, and that 50c with 'eye appeal' that Huss posted? A particularly ugly piece of kitsch to my eyes I'm afraid. Which perhaps highlights the subjectivity of the 'appeal' of such things as coins and the foolishness of taking it all too seriously and trying to talk in absolutes. Grading isn't that precise unless you use a machine to assess exactly how much wear a coin has sustained (and that assumes you have a 100% perfect example to benchmark and we know how difficult it is to find those!) And even if you could say 'this coin has sustained 10.76% wear compared to a perfect specimen' it means very little since the wear could be from the rim, across the whole coin or from the centre of the bust making it either unnoticeable or irrelevant or disastrous in terms of eye appeal.

It does look rather more colourful than it should, a bit like an oil puddle on a wet day.

I presume this is down to the scanner as these things often are with some MS coins.

[Rob 3,152]

It does look rather more colourful than it should, a bit like an oil puddle on a wet day.

I presume this is down to the scanner as these things often are with some MS coins.

Or a bit of chemical help along the way. Whilst no one disputes the ability of coins to acquire really attractive toning in time, the American fad for 'monster toning' seen amongst some collectors has resulted in a ready supply of chemically assisted toned products at grossly inflated prices. Caveat emptor.

[Peckris 579]

Oh, and that 50c with 'eye appeal' that Huss posted? A particularly ugly piece of kitsch to my eyes I'm afraid. Which perhaps highlights the subjectivity of the 'appeal' of such things as coins and the foolishness of taking it all too seriously and trying to talk in absolutes. Grading isn't that precise unless you use a machine to assess exactly how much wear a coin has sustained (and that assumes you have a 100% perfect example to benchmark and we know how difficult it is to find those!) And even if you could say 'this coin has sustained 10.76% wear compared to a perfect specimen' it means very little since the wear could be from the rim, across the whole coin or from the centre of the bust making it either unnoticeable or irrelevant or disastrous in terms of eye appeal.

It does look rather more colourful than it should, a bit like an oil puddle on a wet day.

I presume this is down to the scanner as these things often are with some MS coins.

And that's all BEFORE you factorise in die wear (which no-one in the UK does formally) so that even two BU coins might be different to each other - one being an early strike, say, the other being from a die beginning to show signs of definite wear.

[Benny who 6]

I did have a few NGC that were wrongly slabbed which I cracked and had re-attributed.

I've had a couple dozen NGCs that were incorrectly attributed and which I cracked out. Checking the label is a really good way of getting a bargain, because they get it wrong on a regular basis - usually failing to identify a rare feature. My 1839/41 proof halfpenny in the unlisted varieties section springs to mind as an obvious failure; or Hus's 1844 1/3 farthing described as a half by PCGS despite not having the words HALF FARTHING in big friendly letters on the front (with apologies to Douglas Adams).

I think the best I had was a 1834 H/C MS 63 or 64 marked as a script,when it was block that was NGC,more recently a 1926 ME H/c marked as normal.

[1949threepence 3,367]

And that's all BEFORE you factorise in die wear (which no-one in the UK does formally) so that even two BU coins might be different to each other - one being an early strike, say, the other being from a die beginning to show signs of definite wear.

The obvious problem being that strike variations are not consistent from year to year, and we only tend to notice the really sharp strikes, and those where there is obvious deterioration. Not the bulk of "ordinary" strikes. Moreover, as we all know, there are years in which nearly all the strikes appear to be sub standard, like say 1915/16 pennies, and for that matter, 1907 pennies, where I've yet to see a sharply struck shield, even on an UNC specimen.

Die wear is a factor in so much as it is commonly observed informally, and may lend a bit of a premium to some sharply struck coins, but it would surely be an enormously complex and difficult task, to attempt to quantify and categorise it.

[Peckris 579]

And that's all BEFORE you factorise in die wear (which no-one in the UK does formally) so that even two BU coins might be different to each other - one being an early strike, say, the other being from a die beginning to show signs of definite wear.

The obvious problem being that strike variations are not consistent from year to year, and we only tend to notice the really sharp strikes, and those where there is obvious deterioration. Not the bulk of "ordinary" strikes. Moreover, as we all know, there are years in which nearly all the strikes appear to be sub standard, like say 1915/16 pennies, and for that matter, 1907 pennies, where I've yet to see a sharply struck shield, even on an UNC specimen.

Die wear is a factor in so much as it is commonly observed informally, and may lend a bit of a premium to some sharply struck coins, but it would surely be an enormously complex and difficult task, to attempt to quantify and categorise it.

There is a kind of informal system now, based on three states :

• 1. early strikes, really crisp, which (should) command a premium

• 2. the majority of 'bog standard' UNC strikes

• 3. poor strikes / worn dies which usually go significantly cheaper

I'm not sure I'd want to see anything more complex than that.

[1949threepence 3,367]

And that's all BEFORE you factorise in die wear (which no-one in the UK does formally) so that even two BU coins might be different to each other - one being an early strike, say, the other being from a die beginning to show signs of definite wear.

The obvious problem being that strike variations are not consistent from year to year, and we only tend to notice the really sharp strikes, and those where there is obvious deterioration. Not the bulk of "ordinary" strikes. Moreover, as we all know, there are years in which nearly all the strikes appear to be sub standard, like say 1915/16 pennies, and for that matter, 1907 pennies, where I've yet to see a sharply struck shield, even on an UNC specimen.

Die wear is a factor in so much as it is commonly observed informally, and may lend a bit of a premium to some sharply struck coins, but it would surely be an enormously complex and difficult task, to attempt to quantify and categorise it.

There is a kind of informal system now, based on three states :

• 1. early strikes, really crisp, which (should) command a premium

• 2. the majority of 'bog standard' UNC strikes

• 3. poor strikes / worn dies which usually go significantly cheaper

I'm not sure I'd want to see anything more complex than that.

....and of that informal system, only the first ever has attention drawn to it. Unless it's a totally impartial assessment, of course .....

[Peckris 579]

And that's all BEFORE you factorise in die wear (which no-one in the UK does formally) so that even two BU coins might be different to each other - one being an early strike, say, the other being from a die beginning to show signs of definite wear.

The obvious problem being that strike variations are not consistent from year to year, and we only tend to notice the really sharp strikes, and those where there is obvious deterioration. Not the bulk of "ordinary" strikes. Moreover, as we all know, there are years in which nearly all the strikes appear to be sub standard, like say 1915/16 pennies, and for that matter, 1907 pennies, where I've yet to see a sharply struck shield, even on an UNC specimen.

Die wear is a factor in so much as it is commonly observed informally, and may lend a bit of a premium to some sharply struck coins, but it would surely be an enormously complex and difficult task, to attempt to quantify and categorise it.

There is a kind of informal system now, based on three states :

• 1. early strikes, really crisp, which (should) command a premium

• 2. the majority of 'bog standard' UNC strikes

• 3. poor strikes / worn dies which usually go significantly cheaper

I'm not sure I'd want to see anything more complex than that.

....and of that informal system, only the first ever has attention drawn to it. Unless it's a totally impartial assessment, of course .....

Hahaha - yes true, though I HAVE seen weak strikes described (usually by a dealer who wants us to know that his Fine-looking coin is actually EF)

[1949threepence 3,367]

And that's all BEFORE you factorise in die wear (which no-one in the UK does formally) so that even two BU coins might be different to each other - one being an early strike, say, the other being from a die beginning to show signs of definite wear.

The obvious problem being that strike variations are not consistent from year to year, and we only tend to notice the really sharp strikes, and those where there is obvious deterioration. Not the bulk of "ordinary" strikes. Moreover, as we all know, there are years in which nearly all the strikes appear to be sub standard, like say 1915/16 pennies, and for that matter, 1907 pennies, where I've yet to see a sharply struck shield, even on an UNC specimen.

Die wear is a factor in so much as it is commonly observed informally, and may lend a bit of a premium to some sharply struck coins, but it would surely be an enormously complex and difficult task, to attempt to quantify and categorise it.

There is a kind of informal system now, based on three states :

• 1. early strikes, really crisp, which (should) command a premium

• 2. the majority of 'bog standard' UNC strikes

• 3. poor strikes / worn dies which usually go significantly cheaper

I'm not sure I'd want to see anything more complex than that.

....and of that informal system, only the first ever has attention drawn to it. Unless it's a totally impartial assessment, of course .....

Hahaha - yes true, though I HAVE seen weak strikes described (usually by a dealer who wants us to know that his Fine-looking coin is actually EF)

Ah, the converse situation.....yes, indeed. I should have remembered that. You're right of course